Thursday, February 12, 2009

Love it, loath it.

We've been so tied up waiting for news from Moscow that I've been slow to update the headline post, but I've also been working with a number of owners and/or pilots to provide a 'warts and all' review of the FPJ in the real world. It's fair to summarize my findings with the headline above, as it's clear to me that the aircraft is like the mythical 'little girl'. You all know the story, which goes like this:-

"When she is good, she is very, very good. But when she is bad, she is horrid"

So, with that in mind, herewith a mixture of quotations (in red) and my own contributions which remain in good old fashioned black. It's a very underrated colour in my humble opinion, but I digress.

The basics

Most of us have never flown an FPJ, and it's probably fair to say that few of us critics would embrace the opportunity were it ever to present itself. Across the range of replies I've had, the common theme is that the bird flies very well, and meets (or exceeds) it's performance numbers. A typical comment:-

"Aerodynamicly they got the airframe design and engines right, they are a well blended match producing the performance numbers that were advertised. So Eclipse actually did meet that promise. The jet is very simple to fly, and the Avio NG system, although full of bugs, has a great display presentation and very logical interface to all of the aircrafts' systems."

Avio, both versions

It has some fans. Pilots like the presentation of everything in one style and they like the Crew Alerting System (CAS) popping up in plain view. They like the fact that you select one 'TO Configuration' and pretty much avoid the simpler ways to kill yourself on takeoff.

"The Avio NG system, although full of bugs, has a great display presentation and very logical interface to all the aircraft systems. For most this will be their first exposure to a crew alerting system. The CAS really reduces the workload and keeps you well informed on the health and status of the jet."

What drives everyone mad is due to the level of integration which tends to alert you a lot. Most pilots report that the audibles are too loud, to the point where they can interfere with ATC. The problem here is that there is no way to 'save' your preferred volume so that each time you fly you end up adjusting it again.

Startup, taxi and takeoff

A common thread with the FPJ is the GPU 'requirement'. It seems that any sort of hot weather at all makes the cockpit too uncomfortable to work in, so a number of pilots insist on starting the aircon first, which naturally ties you to the GPU. After doing the normal checklist, which is straightforward enough for a twin jet, it's time to taxi away. The size of the tires is blamed by several for what's claimed to be a rough ride, and the turning circle means you need to stay on top of your game out to the runway.

"Acceleration is fairly quick, inside is amazingly quiet. There is a nuisance alarm that can occur at warm ambient temps giving the occassional engine Warning message but other then that its APR armed, Airspeed alive, and at VR hands off the thottles and pull back on the stick. I wasn't sure if I would like the side stick, but after using it, I love the fact that you're wide open in front of you, perfect if you want to use your laptop or read something. At 400 feet flaps up, set max continuous thrust, and yaw damp on, 1000 feet auto pilot on, heading select, and the next check is 10k for recognition lights off and look for a delta P on the pressuization. To date all delivered E500'a are raw data, VOR DME aircraft. Autopilot is only good for pitch and roll. I have yet to fly an Eclipse that doesn't roll left and right 3 to 5 degrees when in heading mode."

So far, so good. The bird starts, taxi's and takes off without huge drama and in commendably short order. The takeoff distances are praised and the 'feel' of the aircraft also gets high marks.

Climb, cruise and descent

The Autopilot has its' limits, which many pilots have observed. While good in calm air, it tends to bug out in anything other than light turbulence. Range and payload are better than you would think, in large part due to the very low specific fuel consumption. This is clearly a tribute to the basic design, as well as the job P&W did on a 'clean sheet' engine. But there are 'real world' issues that you don't expect.

"Another downside to the autopilot is when commanding pitch changes in an NG aircraft. It sometimes takes up to 20 seconds or so before the input gets processed by the computers. My technique is to dial in 4 to 5 clicks of the wheel and resist the temptation to dial more if there is no initial response. Wait it out, eventually it will happen. In pitch mode the autopilot does a terrible job of maintaining a steady rate of descent, and it requires constant attention. I actuallly think it would be less work load to hand fly the descents."

ATC still don't quite know what to make of the FPJ. Over time this will probably go away, but only if the FPJ stays alive long enough, in numbers, so that the slower speed becomes more familiar to the controllers. To mix it with the jets at higher FL's also requires range limiting 'max thrust' settings, and there are issues with static interference on the radios cause by ice crystals. So, the comfortable range flight of about 850nm is coming to a end. What happens next?

Final approach and landing

Distractions from the 'high volume' audibles during final are a pain, as are the speed expectations from ATC. Our old friend of tyre wear makes a welcome reappearance on the blog. Remember when all we really talked about were simple things like that? Anyway, a concluding quote from an owner/pilot.

"Descents and landings are straight forward, although you will soon find that the slow speeds on approach used in the Sims create road blocks in the real world. Because a lot of ATC controllers aren't familiar with the Eclipse, they know you are a jet and sequence you into traffic accordingly and are expecting jet speeds. I usually fly the approach around 120 to 115, and slow as I approach 200 feet AGL. The jet lands easy, and as long as you touch down close to VTD, braking or tire blowouts should not be a problem. The tires do not wear well at all, and it is not the landings that take the toll. Any time the jet rolls on the ground, you can see black marks on the pavement, proof that the tires are leaving behind lots of rubber. And they wear on the outside near the sidewalls, not in the center."

So thats a pretty nice summary of the general performance of the aircraft, with details supplied by those who fly it. Naturally, there is more.

Living with the 'issues'

Naturally people are reluctant to be identified when there is still a remaining chance the original service centers will be around. They don't want to be scapegoated for drawing attention to the problems they've experienced so I'll have to be a bit vague in collating this section and avoid direct quotations.

The CAS system does exactly that. It keeps the crew alert by streaming plenty of false messages into the cockpit. All pilots who've contacted me report the same 'heading disagree', 'attitude disagree' and 'stick pusher fail' messages which come and go at a whim. The general experience with the earlier birds is worse, but even the Avio NG craft deliver master cautions and warnings of a spurious nature about one flight in four.

Mechanical failures abound, sadly, with door seals, air conditioning, rudder and elevator trim 'issues' very common. All owners report difficulties with water getting into places it shouldn't, which is bound to happen when you're away from your home base with it's nice dry hanger. Most people also report interior trim falling off or not being fitted properly in the first place. There is a thread running through most of the report I have about difficulty communicating problems to the service centers. The staff themselves generally perform trojan work, but parts can take a long time to arrive from suppliers (I wonder why...) and often take several attempts to fix the underlying problem. At least one of my correspondents thinks this is due to the high level of integration within the aircraft, which means software problems with Avio are confusing the mechanics and (to some extent) vice versa.

So, there you have it. An up to date report, complied from many sources, on the current state of the FPJ, as an aircraft. As mentioned on the top of this post, we await news on the Chapter 11 outcome for the company, both from Moscow/ETIRC and the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, where an appeal was lodged yesterday.

Spring approaches, as does the anniversary of the NG version of this blog. I'm just beginning to wonder if company (any version) will survive to help us celebrate the event, which takes place on Monday!

"All pilots who've contacted me report the same 'heading disagree', 'attitude disagree' and 'stick pusher fail' messages which come and go at a whim."..."the Avio NG craft deliver master cautions and warnings of a spurious nature about one flight in four."

In your zeal Shane, you've editorialized a false warning occurring one in four flights to "mesages come and go at a whim." If you'd stuck to the facts and cut out the spin you might have had a good report.

I'm confident your claim that "Mechanical failures abound" is in the same vain. No plane is without mechanical problems. You make it sound like this one falls apart every time you taxi it.

That's B.S.

Or take the need for a GPU in hot weather. Is it a revelation that any small airplane with windows that don't open gets hot in the sun unless you turn the air conditioning on? You seem to have had an "Ah ha!" moment with something every pilot understands about any small plane. When I test flew the Mustang, it had worse "greenhouse effect."

Obviously you didn't want a very complete report, you never even asked me to comment (and I might have if I thought you wouldn't cherry pick any negative comments out of context). I've got over 70,000 mile on my plane now with very few problems.

Of course it would be silly for someone to turn to the "Eclipse Critic blog" to find out if the Eclipse is good. I think your goal wasn't to find out if the plane is good; it was to make the Eclipse Critics feel good! Do you feel good? :)

Ken,"Cool your jets"...you give us reports all the time....Understandably, I know you are a little cranky over this whole fiasco. I like the little jet....It's the company that really sucks. The little EA500 has great potential.

Dave--Shane published the date when the closing was supposed to occur (in his opinion) and buttressed it by printing that Roel told the date to me. Well, that was incorrect, and he published it anyway. Roel didn't tell me the closing date, and I certainly didn't tell it to Shane. I'm not the source for that or any of Shane's information.

Normally I don't much care about the mistruths posted here. But I do care when a false statement like that makes it look like I violated the confidentiality agreements I'm bound by in this matter. I don't care what it looks like to YOU; I care what it looks like to those who have in the past and may in the future share confidential information with ME.

If you're looking for a whiny idiot, I suggest you have only to check out the nearest mirror. Shane's right about one thing--guys like you who throw around worthless personal attacks do nothing but belittle themselves.

Yep. That's exactly right. And that's what was missing from Shane's report.

It's a real good little plane. Lousy company, yep, but real good plane, and we have a new company now. I say give 'em a chance.

The NG 1.3 upgrade corrected the worst of the software glitches. It may be just coincidence, but I don't think I've had any false messages OR autopilot disconnects since that upgrade went in. Yesterday, we got kicked around pretty well descending west of Palm Springs into the L.A. basin, but the autopilot was rock solid (oh, and Shane was wrong when he said it only works in pitch and roll modes; that's just incorrect).

BTW, did you know that the NG 1.3 upgrade went in during the Chapter 11 process? It was made available to owners by the company for free (the software was free, but you had to have an A&P supervise the installation of it). Other service has been available throughout the process, too. It's not at all like some predicted it would be with everything coming to a grinding halt and the planes all AOG.

If you'd sent it to me, Shane, I'd have advised you to remove a lot of the worthless editorial comments and go more with the owners' own words.

I think you had a good report and then screwed it up with too much spin.

Like this editorial comment: "All owners report difficulties with water getting into places it shouldn't..."

I'm not aware of ANY issue with water getting where it shouldn't EXCEPT for water going in the static ports if you don't cover them. You have to cover them whenever you park the plane; the company (foolishly) delivered the planes with no static port covers. It wasn't until very recently that Eclipse made static port covers available, but I got mine months ago from another outfit.

There's a big difference between "all owners report difficulties with water getting into places it shouldn't" and "water will get in the static system if you park the plane in rain and don't cover the ports."

Knowing that sort of thing is what could have made your report a good one.

Want to try again? With decent editing, you might be able to make it a good report...

Your post confirms much of what we’ve heard about the aircraft. The FAA should be concerned about single-pilot workload. Consider the Citation 500 series, aircraft with benign flight characteristics. An inoperative autopilot would prohibit single-pilot use but allow flight with a crew of two.

The Eclipse pilot describes a litany of handicaps… a lobotomized autopilot, no navigation fixes except VOR/DME, and hand-flown raw data approaches. A thirty-year old Learjet or Falcon is far better equipped and remains a two-pilot aircraft.

Consider a ‘dark and stormy night’ with turbulence, wind shear, airframe ice, holding, speed changes, low ceiling and missed approach. How is this aircraft safely operated by a single pilot? You might ask your sources with crew experience about this. (Yes, I know ice is not permitted in the Eclipse scenario.)

No wonder there's such problems with the RoelJet deal given Roel's touting a mere LOI as proof that he had financing to buy Eclipse. Even taking the LOI at face value, it said that money wouldn't be handed over until terms were met and agreed to for a contract that had yet to be signed. Also with the $125M for royalties, I'd expect the Russians to demand a heck of a lot and the Russians might have realized how it was bad business to hand out that kind of money and simply say they'd only be making those kinds of payments once Roel actually built the aircraft and would award him on a per unit basis. The $125M seems way to high - I can't see it being worthwhile to pay that amount of money to any VLJ manufacturer. Roel's feet really should be put to the fire since he was in charge of both the buying and the selling.

Flyboy--I don't know what happens to the standard EAC NDAs as a result of the Chapter 11; it would be a good question for one of the lawyers. But I signed my NDAs and vowed confidentiality to multiple people after the Chapter 11 filing. Hence my reaction to Shane's message.

"the same 'heading disagree', 'attitude disagree' and 'stick pusher fail' messages which come and go at a whim...the Avio NG craft deliver master cautions and warnings of a spurious nature about one flight in four."

Well, I don't know the details, but erroneous specific annunications occurring 1 in 4 flights is concern, sufficient I would indeed put in the category of "coming and going at whim". But I'd concede it is a semantic issue. But I think we'd all agree, it is not acceptable for the long term.----------------------------

Hi Ken,I'm glad you came back to keep us updated.

It is encouraging that there was enough activity at the factory to push our software v 1.3

I'm unfamiliar with that incarnation- I was thinking the "big release" was 1.5- maybe that requires some hardware mods?

Goat--NG 1.3 is a "glitch fix" that corrects the worst of the software glitches, adds better squelch logic, and is FIKI-capable (basically it has most, but not all, of the software improvements of the 1.5 version that comes with the Garmin installation).

I have to disagree with you about the false CAS messages. Early non-NG aircraft had multiple annoying incorrect CAS messages, but that's really not true of current NG planes.

Yes, if the plane were incorrectly telling people that the engine is on fire every fourth flight, it would be bad. But that's not what it was.

All I ever see now is the occasional self-extinguishing minor message like "pitch trim fail" (though I don't recall seeing even that one since the 1.3 upgrade). That message is the aircraft's way of telling the pilot that it was unable to trim off autopilot servo forces in the specified timeframe using the pitch trim servo. Well, it turns out if you make a big speed or pitch change, you can get that message as the system takes longer than the specified time to finish trimming. The message goes away a half second later automatically when the trim catches up. They probably need to lengthen the allowable pitch trim lag time.

Honestly, that sort of thing is really not an issue except for the very first time you get it, when it understandably shakes you up a bit :)

I'm curious if you've noted any trend in the owner's groups about build s/n's: do the earlier planes seem to be "better" (maybe, lower volume production and more individual attention) or are the higher s/n's better (build procedures more ironed out, but maybe problems from rushing production with newer employees)?

What makes me wonder is the bad luck reflected in ea500s's comments- I think perhaps he has a later s/n than yours? I'm sure Shane really IS getting a lot of information from disgruntled owners, I imaging the more satisfied owners participate less, so the "eveidence" might be creating a skewed impression.

Along those lines, could you comment on Turboprop_Pilot's comment regarding required Angle of Attack at higher altitude cruise. I know AOA is a function of weight, speed, and CG, but in general, do you find the required AOA at high altitude cruise acceptable?

Ken said "Well, it turns out if you make a big speed or pitch change, you can get that message as the system takes longer than the specified time to finish trimming."

Well Ken, that means the system, as designed, is inadequate.

Either EAC F'd up the hysterisis allowance in the monitor, or the trim actuator is not powerful enough to do what it is supposed to do - that is, trim forces out in a specified period of time.

I know YOU are OK with that, but it should be troubling to anyone who thinks that aircraft and all of their installed systems should function properly.

Would anyone accept a car that proclaims to stop from 60mph in 80 feet if it really takes 120?

When does it matter? When the bus stops 85 feet in front of you. And being Eclipse, the bus gets put in reverse.

If the airplane does not meet spec under normal operation, who thinks it will not be an unpredictable Charlie Foxtrot in abnormal or emergency situations?

If OTHER pilots, many with considerably more PROFESSIONAL flying experience than the Cardinal of the Church of Flyantology, who fly without the special EAC-NfG LX edition CAS filtering rose colored glasses say they get multiple nuisance CAS messages, and the SDR database was chock full of those, I will put my money with the guys who fly for a living.

Remember, Avio NfG didn't cut in until more than a hundred planes had been delivered - almost half the planes in customers hands (or more safely resting comfortably on FBO ramps like the orphaned and engineless Beech 1900's scattered around the country) will have the older operational issues.

Ken is the prototypical toyjet owner/operator, and is IMO just like the guys who became statistics with the early Bonanza's and Malibu's.

The ONLY difference is that those planes were complete and fully functioning when they were delivered and exceeded their pilot's ability to manage them - and they actually were/are great planes, many still flying safely and regularly as much as 6 decades later.

Something we don't have to worry about with the toyjet.

Thankfully, assuming no issues or worse, we only have to worry about Ken for another 8 and half years - then his plane hits the freshness date on the bottom of the can and gets melted down for scrap (only 10 years later than it should have happened).

Hi Zed,"Please correct me if in error, but the C501 is a Part 25 airplane, and the E500 is Part 23."

Hmmmm, who woulda thunk it, but:"Cessna is a general aircraft manufacturer of a variety of models. Two of these are the turbojet Citation 500 and 501. Cessna contends the only difference between the tow models are their type certificates (Part 23 vs Part 25)".Good Reference on Citation 500/501

Speaking of VLJ's,

Citation 500 (circa 1970):empty 5408# / mtow 10850#

Mustang (circa 2007):empty 5350# / mtow 8645

It is interesting to note the 500 (CITATION 500, that is) and Mustang empty weights, at 5408 vs 5350, are about a bag of potatoes apart (as Dan Quail might say:)

It almost looks like the Mustang is deliberately mtow weight limited, perhaps not to erode sales of up-market models? Hmmmm.

Ken Meyer, You should bow to the aviation gods and thank your lucky stars, because you are one of the few that I have had contact with that are not having major problems with their aircraft. I can assure you that I am not having the same luck and have experienced 4 AOG events, at least 6 com failures, and the list goes on and on and on with a multitude of many other problems. I know of one other person in Minnesota that is having similiar experience as you with very little problems, but the 10 or so other owners I talk with are are also having a multitude of problems such as myself. I have spoke to a lot of mentor pilots that I run into at the service centers, and they too have said that the reliability of AVIO NG has been less then favorable, and these are guys that have a ton of experience flying many different 500's. I have been trying to find some common threads that point to why a group of planes are having so many problems, like SN and how far along it was in production and there doesn't seem to be any correlation to that. The only suggestion that I have heard that may have some merrit is there seems to be a higher number of problems with aircraft that are based in warm humid enviroments. From what I understand Dayjet was plagued with problems and we know those planes were Florida based. Who knows maybe a warm humid enviroment is conducive to creating a lot of free roaming electrons in the AVIO system *grin*

Ken, I have not yet upgraded to 1.3mainly due to the fact that the readme file states that it only address's phantom radio frequency, transponder,and altitude preselect uncommanded changing. It does not state in the readme file that it address's any of the autopilot issues such as disconnecting in light to moderate turbulence, not engaging when selecting autopilot, the often delayed response to making a pitch change, and other Avio issues I deal with on a regular basis. Perhaps you can enlighten me of any additonal bugs that EFIS 1.3 incorporates that the factory is not telling us about in the readme. I get a lot of data bus fail messages, a lot of disagree messages both for heading and attitude. These problems seem to come and go without prediction. Sometimes they will pop up for three flights in a row, then dissapear for a few months only to come back again. I still do not think the airplane has a higher then normal workload when operated as single pilot, even when it is IFR and turbulent and hand flown ILS approaches are part of the flight. For this I give credit to the excellent training I received in the SIM from HPA and from mentor pilots I have flown with. I was exposed to a lot of master caution and warning messages when I flew the plane home from the factory with my mentor pilot. He was use to a lot of these, and as a result I emulated my mentor pilots reaction to these events without a lot of stress. I hope you continue to have success with your jet Ken, and I welcome the day I can get mine to work as well as yours.

In an earlier discussion about birds:I busted SEVERAL FAR's when avoiding birds in the Bonanza;

1. Aerobatic flight in an aircraft NOT certified for aerobatics(sustained knife edge)

2. Unauthorized aerobatic flight in an airport traffic area.

3. Aerobatic flight at an unsafe altitude over a populated area.(250-350')

..and maybe some more I don't know about.ATC was watching the whole time and knew what happened.Nothing was ever said to anybody other than ATC saying "...boy that was close, are you ok?...And calming the nerves of the pilot jus' riding next to me that jus' had incontinence.

The FAR's put the ultimate choice of ANYTHING in Pilots hands if there is a need to deviate from the norm. BUT! He MUST be responsible for his choices.

ATM,"...when you signed the NDA, did these folks know you were going to be part of a group working against them in court?"

Hmmmm, interesting proposition. I would suppose Eclipse would want EVERYONE signed up on NSA's to prevent disclosure of as much as possible. It it interesting to consider the complications involved with introducing material in court, without breaching the NDA.

From the sound of essentially all pilots other than Ken, including ea500s, there is a signficant risk from a human factors standpoint of people becoming complacent about CAS messages.

A human factors engineering evaluation of the plane, as currently described by these folks, would not be favorable. If CAS messages are erroneously popping up, and pilot's get used to CAS messages meaning nothing, they eventually will be up for a real reason and may not get the attention they should.

Considering the nature of the type of messages (heading disagree, attitude disagree, data bus fail, etc.) and then adding in the UNCOMMANDED CHANGE of little things like altitude preselect, communication frequency, transponder code - and the reported inability of the autopilot to remain engaged, IN TURBULENCE.

We have also seen self-reported complacency about operations outside of what the plane should legally be considered capable of, and self-reported ignorance of (or deliberate violation of) several safety regulations (icing, O2 use, GPS navigation to name a few).

It is beginning to look to me like the Wedge Reality Distortion Field may have caused permanant damage to the ADM skills of at least some of his victims, umm, customers.

This begs the question, at what point does the FAA, or even one Ken Meyer, decide the risk is too great?

I suspect we will see preemie jets voluntarily parked and put up for sale for no reason beyond the once proud dreamer/owner no longer trusting the plane.

Based on what we have been seeing/hearing for several years now, had I somehow been conned into buying one of these abortions, I would certainly own up to the mistake at this point and bail.

I WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS LEVEL OF INCOMPLETENESS AND INCOMPETENCE FOR A LAWN MOWER OR PROPANE BARBECUE, LET ALONE AN AIRCRAFT.

Ken Meyer, just curious if you had the service center or a local mechanic do your EFIS 1.3 load. Did you by any chance observe the process. The documentation that comes with the software load says that weight and balance, N number, and flight times might be lost during the load requiring Avio maintenance computer to re enter. Just wondering if that was required, or was all your info held after the load.Thanks

I live in Tampa bay area, and do quite a bit of flying in FL not to mention all over the rest of the country. And I have NEVER had to use a GPU.

The only problems we have had are the pitot static issues with CAS messages that I am sure most are aware of. Pitot static system replaced and we no longer have problems. In addition we have a outflow valve problem with pressurization system, also quickly corrected.

I have had my Eclipse for 18 months. 1 AOG in that time. Same CAS issue as above which was corrected with a new itot tube. Other than the obvious, mos people who have bought new Pipers, Cessnas,Beeches etc have had as many or more warranty issues. All in all, pretty good fr an all new aircraft.

Eclipse pilot and 421--that sounds more like it. Bloggers may not have known that EAC had a series of bad pitot tubes from Harco that caused many people the problems you describe.

That may actually be part of EA500s's problem, too--you know (but the others may not) that airspeed disagree is the root cause of many AP disconnect and other issues, Airspeed disagree is easy to get if one or both probes are bad.

EA500S--Yes I saw the entire process. You could actually do it yourself, but it wouldn't be legal that way. I haven't heard of anyone where upgrading the EFIS load wiped out the W&B data. That's the kind of thing that would show up fast on the owners' site and is a very good reason for joining.

Ken, I have never had an airspeed disagree, so that would be one CAS message that I haven't seen. Plus my probes were switched out and heading and attitude disagree's persist at very random times. Thanks for that info on EFIS 1.3 load, I will have my mechanic load it as soon as my aircraft get's RTS'd (Hopefully in a week or so)

EAC in the know execs: "Ken, you know we're in BK, and chances are, the entire client list is going to get screwed out of IOUs, warantee, jetincomplete, you are probably going to want to make some noise about all this..."

Ken: "OK, I'll sign an NDA... then you tell me all kinds of sensitive private information"

EA500S--Probably better to kick the discussion over to the E5C site, but the heading disagree sounds like a CRM issue, maybe a bad AHRS. You probably ought write the date/time stamp down and do a DSU download for analysis.

BTW, heading disagree can be normal when the airplane is parked near a metal structure. You're not carrying a big magnet in the cabin, right? :)

BEG- I have to disagree with you about the wing. A new wing would have allowed:

Room for larger tires and anti-skid, eliminating the excessive wear, poor ride on the ground, and blow outs.

Longer wing: reduced angle of attack at highest altitudes, more area for reduced loading, more room for fuel, able to climb to max altitude in hotter conditions

Allow increase in max weight- with the excellent fuel consumption at altitude, a small increase in fuel capacity would comfortably bring the usable range up to the 1,100 miles +/- desired by most pilots and increase flexibility of the plane.

With a weight increase over 6,000 lbs, the exemptions needed from the FAA for accelerate/stop would be lost but the larger tires and anti-skid would make the numbers acceptable. Probably could have skipped some of the expensive steps to save weight too.

Couple this with a Garmin or L3 cockpit with a separate system for the electronic circuit breakers and Wedge would have had a very economical personal jet, priced at $2.5 million, with the best economics and speed of the class.

And no one would have invested with the realistic sales of 50-150 per year. Go figure.

Mac's article about the demise of Eclipse sounds like a posting here. His points about the lasting damage to GA and a well reasoned argument against Baron95's postings about the good Wedge did (and they both fly old Barons).

Shane- you should get permission to re-post here, in case anyone doesn't read Flying.

yeah shane and from what I hear you don't want to push ole Macs buttons because it would prompt him to write a nasty article about you and your blog you humbly maintain. Gotta love journalists now a days. All trash if you ask me. But you didn't.

Ken thanks for the suggestions, and I am not sure if you are joking or serious? My DSU timestamp log I keep for problems is thicker then my Jepp manual, I have been down this road more then you can imagine, and I think that trained engineers and techs at Eclipse are a little more qualitifed then the E5C group on trouble shooting the problems that persist. And as far as I know, I have yet to see any metal buldings in the vicnitity of said aircraft while going mach .62 I did get a chuckle though at the thought.

I am not a jealous person but I would be a little less then honest if I said I wasn't envious of your relationship with the jet. See you over at the Eclipse club :)

Hi Turboprop_Pilot,"Room for larger tires and anti-skid, eliminating the excessive wear, poor ride on the ground, and blow outs."

Hmmm, I think the tire problem is probably just the wrong specs- surfing about turns up some articles from Sept 2008 about Michilen switching from radials to bias ply for better durability. Maybe some geometry issues as well (scuffing?, or excessive deflection?).

Antiskid is not a bad thing, but with a stall speed below 70 knots, I'm not sure it's worth the complexity- I believe besides the antiskid electronics, it would require a hydraulic pump- the Eclipse has no hydraulic system.Nice article from AvWeek on the Mustang, mentioning the a-skid on it.AvWeek, Mustang, Apr 29, 2007

"Longer wing: reduced angle of attack at highest altitudes, more area for reduced loading, more room for fuel, able to climb to max altitude in hotter conditions"

AOA, true- but I haven't heard anyone mention it as an issue, as is. Reduced wing loading? Again, with a stall speed of 69 knots- I think it's already pretty low. Any lower just makes for a bumpier ride. More room for fuel? Hmmm, okay, but it already meets it's range design specs with the tip tanks. Hot and high takeoffs? Yes, it would help there, but I'm not sure that's a particular issue.

"Allow increase in max weight- with the excellent fuel consumption at altitude, a small increase in fuel capacity would comfortably bring the usable range up to the 1,100 miles +/- desired by most pilots and increase flexibility of the plane."

More weight would require more thrust. But a little more fuel is always a good thing. But again, I think it meets it's design criteria already.

"Couple this with a Garmin or L3 cockpit with a separate system for the electronic circuit breakers and Wedge would have had a very economical personal jet, priced at $2.5 million, with the best economics and speed of the class."

I agree an upgrade to Garmin would be nice- but price would go up (more), and at $1.8M it's already got the best economics and speed, because it's in a class of it's own. Putting it in the $2.5M class is a disservice- and reflects the poor management and excessive infrastructure costs, rather than deficiencies in the airplane.

Again- it could be better, but it meet's it's specs as is. (?at least, if all the Eclipse PR's are true. HA HA HA. But in this rare case, I think it is true).

"And no one would have invested with the realistic sales of 50-150 per year. Go figure."

...It almost looks like the Mustang is deliberately mtow weight limited, perhaps not to erode sales of up-market models? Hmmmm.

Bill.e:

I suspect not.

The Mustang has only 61% of the rated thrust of the 500, and 80% of the wing area. Yet it grosses out at 79% of the 500's weight ( and I believe stalls at a lower speed as well ). Trying to certify/operate one at a five-digit weight would lend new meaning to the notion of "loves the runway" ( And the overrun. And the subdivision on the other side of the fence ).

I'm not surprised at all. With Roel playing everyone, sooner or later it is going to catch up to him. I expect the Russians didn't envision this at all with their financing of the Russian factory being used as the financing for buying Eclipse. Because this was only at the LOI stage the Russians can completely put Roel over a barrel (so he gets to be on the receiving end for a change) or just walk away from the dishonest double dealer entirely. Everyone should be upset with Roel including the judge since Roel shut out other bidders based on a phantom bid with financing that didn't exist and has shown that all he does is act in bad faith - bad faith with the customers, bad faith with the suppliers, bad faith with the Russians, bad faith as CEO of Eclipse and bad faith to the US legal system.

Ken is the prototypical toyjet owner/operator, and is IMO just like the guys who became statistics with the early Bonanza's and Malibu's.

CWMoR,

I have to disagree with you on this. Any schmoo with complex & high-perf endorsements could fly a Bonanza or Malibu, without any particular understanding of what makes them tick.

FPJ pilots must obtain a type rating, and perform a checkride to ATP standards. Whether or not any particular FPJ pilot carries with them the same traits and tendencies that led to their predecessors' demise, they are certainly required to be more prepared for what the aircraft might have in store for them.

The type rating - that anathema to Baron's sense of VLJ rationality - is likely to result in a considerably lower Widow Ratio for the FPJ than for the earlier birds you noted.

Goat asked, "could you comment on Turboprop_Pilot's comment regarding required Angle of Attack at higher altitude cruise. I know AOA is a function of weight, speed, and CG, but in general, do you find the required AOA at high altitude cruise acceptable?"

I never gave it a moment's thought, so today I pulled out some photos showing ANU at 3 different altitudes--27,000 feet, 35,000 feet, and 39,000 feet:

Although CAS went down from 237 to 186 over that range of altitudes, TAS was 368, 369, and 361 knots respectively, and ANU rose by maybe 1 degree or so at the higher altitude. That's probably why I never gave it much thought--of course the deck angle goes up some at higher altitude with lower indicated airspeed, but it turns out not by that much.

funny to see Ken really unnerved at an incomplete word, where one letter was omitted, given what he has accpeted for all his money.

Think I got nothing for my deposit on my second plane...

Or

I can overlook CAS messages and Warnings while flying my plane ... and that's OK with me.

The double stadard is really thick. Then again, it has to be, or one would be looking oneself in the mirror and saying, I got shafted pretty bad, I take on undue risk every time I fly, my judgement is off - especially someone as persnickety as Mr. Ken.

"Yeah, if you choose to sell your EA500 you'll probably end up getting a lot less for it than you paid for it. So what? You can also go out and buy one back for the same amount, or maybe less. But at least then it is you who are in control."

DUD, you missed the main point - KEN GOT THE ONE AND ONLY BEST EA50 EVER BUILT. Why would he sell it? What if he got another crappy one, like almost everynone else.

Shane please be careful when you call this a scam - I sincerely don't think it was.

It was a bunch of computer guys who thought they found a technology or three that could make a difference, and they wildly overestimated the market and underestimated the competency of the establishment.

This is not a scam. Its arrogance and ignorance to the tune of $3B, but not a scam.

It BECAME a scam, when a few things happend:

1- they did not get enough orders, and faked an order book to encourage unsuspecting customers to pony up deposit money

2- they lied about milestones such as conforming first flight, and took deposit money knowing full well the plane they flew needed new engines and would require a redesign

3- they misinformed clients that they could produce hundreds of planes a year in yr-1 and yr-2 and called deposits/progress paymentswhen there was no possible way to do this.

OK, so since August 26, 2002, when the celebrated first flight qith the failed engines, its been a scam. Perhaps a few months before, when they announced Nimbus bought 1000 planes from them... so perhaps since mid 2002, it's been a scam.

This is not a scam. Its arrogance and ignorance to the tune of $3B, but not a scam.

I think it was a scam from the beginning. I think Vern knew all along it wouldn't work and was just trying to get rich off an IPOand then have others pick up the peaces. Keep in mind when Eclipse started during the internet bubble where there were many people getting rich off bad tech IPOs that would then crash once the founders got out with their ill-gotten millions. Like for instance I think Vern knew FSW was mostly marketing fluff and that his claims of 600 hours to manufacture a unit were knowing falsehoods. I saw this because his designed employee count doesn't jibe with his designed hours per unit. Vern was trying to get rich quick off the new new thing, but aviation isn't like the internet or building computers (or even cars for that matters) and as such it just unravelled. I do think there was a lot of arrogance and ignorance involved, but from the beginning Vern knew he was making claims that would never pan out.

Actually, guys, the priceless part is what I did--again--today: flying in the thirties, at about 370 knots, over all the weather, in quiet jet comfort in a plane affordable by an ordinary guy like me, a plane you critics said would never exist, while you sit around your keyboards, your best and brightest hope being that maybe you'll think up a real zinger of a complaint today.

Ken said... Or take the need for a GPU in hot weather. Is it a revelation that any small airplane with windows that don't open gets hot in the sun unless you turn the air conditioning on? You seem to have had an "Ah ha!" moment with something every pilot understands about any small plane.

That is right up the alley of Mac McClelan's "ah-ha" moment in his piece "Why the Eclipse Failed". He goes on an on and on on how the Eclipse burns a lot more fuel and has its range decreased if it is forced to cruise at 10,000 ft. Oh, my god! Is there any jet that is immune to this phenomenon.

Mac should either stick to flying his Baron or get better informed and less predisposed to hyping a well known and perfectly normal phenomenon.

Similarly Shane, I doubt very much that ATC doesn't know what to do with the EA500 in cruise and that it can mix up with Jet traffic in the FL. The cruise speed of the EA500 is a 25-30 KTS faster than the C510 and the C500, and similar to the CJ/CJ1 and ATC has no problem dealing with them.

So your headline post was one of the best ones so far - good amount of factual info. If only you had resisted the urge to over dramatize.

As I said before, there is plenty of legitimate issues to complain about the Eclipse EA500 and the Company. There is NO NEED to exaggerate or make up more bogus ones.

Maybe you and Mac should drink some warm beer together (yes, I know you are not English)

Well, whether you like the FPJ or not, nothing will matter when an AD is published that grounds the entire fleet - permanently.

AFAIK, The CAA/FAA has NEVER EVER done that in 105 years of powered flight. Why do you think the FAA would do that now?

One of the mandates of the FAA is to PROMOTE aviation. They have always worked with owners of orphan airplanes to keep them flying. ALWAYS. And some are really, really, "tricky" planes to maintain and operate safely.

In an earlier discussion about birds: I busted SEVERAL FAR's when avoiding birds in the Bonanza;

No you didn't. It is not a violation of the FARs to take emergency action needed to avoid a hazard and insure the safe outcome of a flight.

I'm not giving you a hard time, but that is one of my pet peeves when training mentoring pilots. Some pilots are developing with a real fear of taking action and control of a flight until it is too late for fear of an FAR violation.

DI said... The type rating - that anathema to Baron's sense of VLJ rationality - is likely to result in a considerably lower Widow Ratio for the FPJ than for the earlier birds you noted.

So would requiring a 2 person crew, requiring synthetic vision and IR vision for ALL IFR planes, requiring auto-land to Cat III standards on all planes, certifying all planes to PArt 25 standards, etc, etc, etc.

And most of those things would simply kill GA.

You seem to have difficulty with the concept of risk/cost management.

I maintain that a Single Engine DJet or Cirrus Jet, at 300 KTS, FL250, <60KTS stall, and under 6,000 lbs is much safer to operate by the average single pilot that a Beech King Air BE200 with a MTOW of 12,500 lbs.

Yet, the FAR requires a type rating for the DJet and none for the BE200. That is idiocy elevated to the extreme.

Ken," your best and brightest hope being that maybe you'll think up a real zinger of a complaint today."...Okay, here goes:---------------------------------Q:Dave Ivedorne: "Are you a whiny idiot, or just a blowhard?...Would you like the combo?"A:If you're talking about Goat- he IS the combo !!

Baron,You missed the point and the analogy entirely:There are individuals on this blogg that are doing things in their Tonka jet that bust FAR's as I did in the Bonanza.

I did NOT "declare" an emergency and neither did or have they. Nor did I write up a "report" of reasons for deviation from the FAR's.(Which I would have had to of done if I declared an "emergency".

For whatever reasons they choose to mitigate the operation of certain "objects" or "happenings" in their cockpit they must be responsible in the end if any “questions" arise. In my case there was good reason as I explained.Was it unsafe? That depends. I was a 1000 hr pilot back then and was flying aerobatics in other aircraft. For me it was no big deal. But for a 250 hr. "Dr. pilot" flying his "banana", it could have been a terrifying maneuver and unsafe considering his experience.

Git ma' drift partner?

And to the Faithful;TONKA is an affectionate term to me. They were my favorite toys when I was a kid. I even had a Toyota truck once I named "TONKA"

As an ex-EAC employee (I left in January), I have enjoyed reading this blog for quite some time. There are a great many knowledgeable people that post here and like many other "Eclipsers" I found it to be a great source of information and insightful speculation.

However, I feel compelled to specifically direct a couple of overdue comments:

Shane - Thanks for your work. It is greatly appreciated.

Fred - I can't tell if your command of the English language or your intellect is responsible for most of your nonsensical posts but I began skipping every comment of yours months ago. I'd be willing to bet Shane's trademark pint that I have missed nothing of importance.

Dave - Your closing comments on every post were funny once or twice. They have long since turned to just plain annoying.

Would you like some creativity with your post?

Ken - You're an idiot. You endlessly shill for a product made by a company that makes even Wal-Mart look like the poster child of corporate responsibility. EAC was/is run by thieves - plain and simple. They stole from customers, investors, governments, taxpayers, employees and suppliers without shame and no doubt will continue to do so no matter what form they take or what ownership transpires. If you knew what I knew you would never get in that plane of yours again. If you're lucky you'll be permanently AOG soon. If not, you'll have about 2 minutes at the end of your miserable life to contemplate how badly you were screwed.

To most of the rest of you - great posts. Keep up the good work and thanks for the knowledgeable insight on so many topics.

On this whole debacle of the EA500 jet, I was kinda' hoping a large corporate aircraft manufacturer would pick up the little jet and add it to their line of aircraft as a "compliment" and NOT their main source of revenue. Many corporate aviation departments have many aircraft for different missions. And it would seem like a glove fit to have 2 or 3 types of aircraft from ONE supplier for logistical reasons only. AND….of course individuals can still buy the little jet for personal use from a LARGE, REPUTABLE corporate aircraft manufacturer. A manufacturer that is familiar with highly integrated flight decks would be ideal. They would have the people, resources and knowledge on how to build and work with the little jet. I guess a marriage like the Cessna purchase of Columbia but on a higher level.

All I can say is thanks for the post. Sometimes blunt honesty just rings true... you can smell it, feel it.

I've been using my industry experience and intuition regarding the company, piecing PR and rumors together to try to discern...

Different perspectives are what makes the world go around, and what makes turning a blind eye to risk, or shilling to try to get someonelese's money in the game to increase your chance of getting something for your deposit, or trying to perpetuate a company which should have been out of business along time ago, possible.

- there is no business case, IMO. Trying to find a case for how to end up with a $1M twin jet, is gone. Trying to sell many of those planes for $2.5M is a little silly.

The whole Russian thing smacks of Dr. Evil, or better, Mini-me.

So, thanks for the post that rings true.

PS. I have no problem with the other posters you mentioned

One more thing -

"If you knew what I knew you would never get in that plane of yours again."

Any community is enriched by those who PARTICIPATE. I find Fred's posts informative (he has great insight into the Russians, for example, and I'm still thinking about some of his comments about financial bubbles) with gems of wisdom and humor. Even Ken, who braves the derision of many by posting here, has helped, in my opinion, by being a foil and sharpening thoughts on what has happened and is happening with Eclipse.

If you appreciated the blog, you could've just said so. And if you REALLY appreciated the blog, you could've elaborated about what you know, or think you know that others on the blog don't.

I'm sure those about whom I expressed a negative opinion will appreciate your defense of them.

What I think I know? Are you suggesting that an ex-employee isn't likely to have knowledge that you and others do not? Interesting viewpoint and not worthy of a response.

I didn't leave Eclipse with any proof of what I saw during my tenure and have no interest in fending off the litigious management at EAC by publicly stating that which I cannot prove. There has been ample discussion of this plane, the company and its manufacturing processes here and elsewhere. Believe what you like and fly what you like. Ken does and I doubt anything I said (or could say) would change that. I have no dog in this fight (anymore).

Maybe Fred's posts have gotten better since I stopped reading them months ago. I don't know and frankly don't care. They were mostly incoherent in the past and he had a bad habit of posting several long diatribes in a row that took more away from my enjoyment of the blog than they added. That's my opinion.

If you find Dave's repetitive signature amusing, that's your prerogative, as well. I don't and thanks to the freedom afforded me, I am at liberty to voice that opinion.

And in case my disdain related to EAC wasn't clear - it's the management for whom I have no respect. Almost without exception, the rank and file were decent, hardworking and competent people.

Those who choose to attack my opinions or want details that I will not provide will not elicit another response from me on these topics.

i gladly recognize that i don't have a brain ( the part about "Intellectual capabilities" ) but instead a bowl of water , which is sometimes to my great sorrow boiling ...

what i find very amusing :

how to know something doesn't make sens if you skip it ?

you see , from far away , out of this troubled time and without any other problem than "where am i going to spend my third month of the year vacation?" ...

[in fact i am lying like a pig (should i say like an EAC marketing joe ?) the most important problem of my life now is :"am i going to start a sailing trip around the whole world Eastbound or Westbound ?"

something very existential , you see ! ;-) ]

so , as i wrote , from far away it seems to me that some are so busy looking at their own belly-button that they miss a really nice part of the fun ..

in order to qualify something , some writing or some thoughts of "nonsensical" ...YOU first have to make some sens yourself ... and to be naturally so much above all others (naturally = if it is only fake , any schmuck who had too much booze last night or not enough sex or both, can do ... it is only called "distortion of ego" )

that he can say at any , i am "THE ONE" ...

sad to see that a person cannot understand that truth doesn't even exist as a finite and universal thing ...

but i am digressing already ...

so yes ...! please skip ...(yes , you "M. thrown out" )

as you did for :

*the way your tax are spent ...*the void of your civil rights "Patriot act" is and was ...*the fine print of your loan(s) to buy a valueless house ,where it is stated "we own your a..."

the only one thing which is going to be difficult to skip about you :

the stain left in your C.V. after staying for so long in the "ABQ's greatest joke of the century "...

MovedOn: My "what you think you know" comment was a tribute the knowledge of the people have contributed in the past. Of course and insider should be able to provide insights that non-insiders can only speculate on.

I gave examples of why Fred and Ken are valuable to the blog but the point was not to defend them personally or to convince you to re-read past posts. The point is that the blog that is better for having a diversity of views and personalities.

Of course you are free to dislike someone's point of view, or the way they express themselves but saying so on the blog is an attack on the community itself because it discourages the participation of those who are mentioned, those who DO appreciate the comments of those who are mentioned, and possible future contributors who worry that their participate will be derided.

Dave - Your closing comments on every post were funny once or twice. They have long since turned to just plain annoying.

Perhaps you misconstrue my purpose here - it could well be that I view your opinion as evidence that I screwed up once or twice. ( more likely it means I need to work on some new one-liners that seem oddly topical, yet not uncharacteristic of something you'd hear at 12:08 PM with the window rolled down. Suggestion - don't hold your breath while waiting. I'm really not all that naturally creative. )

Fear not though, it turns out that occasionally I agree with your view on the subject. It's a recession - I had to lay off all my funny writers.

As for Fred, English is - at best - a third or fourth language for him. Considering that, he communicates extraordinarily well. He's also the only one here who appears to have a working understanding of how business & finance work in Russia, so his "value add" to the blog could not be adequately quantified. Yeah, he's hard to follow sometimes. So what? Sometimes the haystack is small enough, and the needle golden enough, that the search is worthwhile.

Ken IS a huge contributor to this blog - maybe one of the best. His perspective is very valuable. We learn more about certain aspects of the position-holders/die-hards/owners from his than anyone else.

He may not be able to defend his position, and he certainly fades away quickly or moves into criticising the person or their spelling, instead of backing up his position... but that's all part of the answer to the question: "who is this eclipse 500 buyer, anyway?"

It helps understand how they think, and perhaps, just maybe how come there are so few of them.

Remember, this company spent Millions on PR, marketing and advertising, NBAA, sales tours, etc... for 12 years... they had pitched (for much of it) a $1M super-performing twin jet, with jetincomplete to bolster claims of low OC.

and -

They really had a few hundred position holders, some making deposits on a few planes, so in all around 500 customers. Many of these were flippers - there were around 100 positions flipped before 1 year of production...

So, understanding the guy who promoted EAc (the company until recently, and always finds an excuse to promote the plane (I am not saying he is wrong here) EVEN IF HE REALLY DID OBTAIN THE SINGLE BEST MADE MOST RELAIBLE ALMOST-PERFECT EA50... is curious to me.

How accepting of risk are these folks?

I guess Movedon knows more than waht he's already read here... so I am curious.

MoveOn, welcome to the blog- we look forward to your general observations (non-fodder for the Eclipse legal thugs), but I think to avoid frustration, you must ask yourself if really, "Do we have chemistry here?""views, knowledge and news"

Would you like the mild or hot sauce?(I think this gal is wishing she had taken the mild sauce:)

(And by the way, could you PLEASE explain to Fred the difference between the Russian VEB and VTB, it's reassuring to have someone with better insight on those around :)

MovedOn wrote, "You're an idiot. You endlessly shill for a product made by a company that makes even Wal-Mart look like the poster child of corporate responsibility. EAC was/is run by thieves - plain and simple."

MovedOn, I trust you're interested in the rules of your new blog home--we don't call others idiots, even though we may think they are.

And that's the sense I'm getting of you. You sound pretty unhappy with Eclipse. Well guess what? You're blaming the wrong guy. The only thing I did to you was send in the money that paid your goddamn salary!

Was that idiotic? Maybe. But in the end, I think it is more idiotic to blame the money source than the company that, in your view, screwed you.

By the strictest standards, half (or more) of all startups are "scams".

My views are closest to airtaximan's: it seems to me that the abuses came after Eclipse found that executing on their agressive business plan was more difficult than anticipated. (But I would qualify that as saying that I don't know of enough of the history and personalities to say definitively.)

I totally agree with your assessment of the actual start of the scam, for a very first-person reason. You see, I was very excited about the Eclipse concept for months prior to that first flight. I felt, however, that it would be prudent to see the bird fly before placing a somewhat significant deposit for purchase. After showing the online video to my wife, to prove my due diligence in the matter, she agreed to allowing me to place the deposit. To say that I have endured more than 1 "I told you so" would be an understatement. Thank goodness she put the nixnay on my enthusiastic suggestion to place one more deposit on spec. By now it is obvious who handles the finances in our family. Perhaps that is a good case for checks and balances.

Just for clarification (she also reads the blog on occasion) she is smarter than any blond, brunette, redhead, or raven haired individual that I know. She is far less gullible than I (or is it "me"). Not sure about the grammar, but Ken will certainly correct me if I am wrong.

in actuality, the scam started way before first flight. To believe they did not know first flight ws a stunt, in advance of first flight, is to think they had no one who could assess the development of the engine... and they were funding the development.

So, in order to fly THAT plane with THOSE engines, knowing full well in advance there was no way they would make it for the "prime time" aircraft, was a planned fraud.

Had they admitted before they took deposits, that they were going to switch engines... I would not be saying this.

So, they flew a stunt, to GET deposits. Once they had them, they switched the engines.

BTW, anyone not familiar enough with development programs and the risks associated therewith, should refrain from placing deposits.

Especially in EAc's case, where they always said they would produce so many planes, and projected to ramp up so quickly, that placing a deposit MIGHT buy you a few months or a year, if all the stars aligned. If they did not align, you would most likely lose your deposit.

So, the risk side indicates your deposit would probably be lost. Highly probable, in fact. On the benefit side, you might get a plane a few months early.

Sounds like a dumb bet to me.

Bottom line, the first flight with the WI engines was only to get deposit money from unsuspecting clients. There is no possible way the upper managers did not know the engine was garbage, months in advance of this stunt. Pervious, you only had Nimbus, the first 1,000 plane order that was bogus. If you don't think VErn et als knew this was bogus, read the INC magazine article on the subject, where it basically states that Vern tried to finance the Nimbus order with Nimbus stock, instead of cash - because they had no cash... and they also had zero aviation experience. Ya think Vern knew it was a sham? Well the Nimbus 1,000 plane order PR hype preceeded closing on a multi- million dollar financing round...

Actually, guys, the priceless part is what I did--again--today: flying in the thirties, at about 370 knots, over all the weather, in quiet jet comfort ...

But how many other owners are actually using their EA500s? If operating the airplane is as much fun and economical as Ken makes it out to be, and there are spare parts and service to be had, then surely every owner is out there flying their EA500s often.

Well, it just ain't so. I checked FA tracks today, and of the 235 EA500s that aren't either blocked (15 airplanes) or have never appeared on FA (9 airplanes), an astounding number of them haven't flown recently.

52% haven't flown in the last 30 days, 44% haven't flown in the last 60 days, and 36% haven't flown in the last 90 days.

Now who the heck owns a jet and doesn't fly it for 90 days? More than 1 in 3 EA500s has been sitting that long. Those 90 days include the busiest private jet time of the year, the Thanksgiving to New Years holidays.

One has to wonder what is keeping the EA500s on the ground. Are they AOG waiting for parts or service? Are they crippled by lack of FIKI right now? Do the current owners want to get rid of them but can't?

Certainly seems like the beautiful picture Ken paints of EA500 ownership isn't working for a great number of the owners.

Eclipse was $billions and the effort of thousands of people so that much less than 200 people could temporarily enjoy using a very life limited airplane.

Mike (Flyger) Ciholas asks, "Now who the heck owns a jet and doesn't fly it for 90 days?"

Gee, Mike, you might just as well ask yourself why Flightaware shows your turboprop hasn't been flown in many days either! 43 days as I write this, if Flightaware is to be believed.

Maybe the Eclipse owners didn't have anywhere to go. If you're thinking a guy with an Eclipse necessarily flies every day or even every week, I don't think that's right any more than a guy with a 421 or a Mooney does. An Eclipse is not like a G5 (where most are in commercial service)--many, perhaps most Eclipse 500's are owner-flown. They fly when the owner needs to go somewhere.

I don't think many EA500's are AOG if that's your theory. I can tell you that some of the owners I talk to feel more comfortable not flying the plane until things settle out with the new company. I don't happen to see it that way--I've been flying my Eclipse a lot--but neither do I fault them for that point of view.

1. Roel is not in Russia, and has not been for some time. He knows he's not getting funding (in time) from there, and is searching, hard, 'elsewhere'. I wish him luck. Most banks here in Europe are taking salary and bonus cuts, as well as state investment, just to stay afloat.

2. Yes, you read that snippet correctly. The Russian President, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, has made it clear he will veto any funding which is not a 'core' activity, under the current re-financing plan. The ETIRC FPJ plant at Ulyanovsk is NOT a core activity.

3. As a consequence of the scales falling from their eyes the BoD at EAC have again instructed Greenhills. This is the company who arranged the original Chapter 11 sales process. They are to revisit any parties who expressed interest in EAC.

4. Roel is, sadly, demonstrated to be a man of straw. He has no money, or at least none he's prepared to spend down ABQ way.

I'm a firm believer in getting my retaliation in first. This come naturally to me, being Irish....

So, here goes.

I guess that the 'owners group', who bid just on $50 million for EAC's assets during the 'original' Chapter 11, will find it hard to work out how to respond to Greenhills this time.

My own 'nose' tells me that Chapter 7 is the only way forward. It's cleaner, faster and more likely to suck in some zealous aviation types who appear when a 'good idea' is screwed up by incompetent amateurs.

Or career con artists....

Some might say that I'm being a little hard on Wedge and his merry band of scammers, but I have a viewpoint and I'm entitled to promote it.

Just like Ken, who has his FPJ and is fully entitled to risk his life as many times he likes.

Hang on, that's a bit hard on Ken. He's not risking his life by flying a jet designed for one set of engines and delivered with another, is he?. Or designed with one avionics suite and delivered with several others? Heck, it's still got it's original tires and brakes and we all know what a fine job they've done...

Nope, Ken's entitled to BID for this monumental business screw up if he wants to.

No wonder Ken's panties are in a bunch and he is lashing out at fellow bloggers.

I'll bet he was all over this thanks to his recent NDA - I am sure he knew full well these problems were coming - hell, I'd be a little pissy too if I knew my plane's support company was about to potentially go permanently Tango Uniform.

I bet the real anguish comes when the owner's group ends up being the only suckers who might end up with the can o' beans after all.

My own 'nose' tells me that Chapter 7 is the only way forward. It's cleaner, faster and more likely to suck in some zealous aviation types who appear when a 'good idea' is screwed up by incompetent amateurs.

I think Roel has delivered a serious blow to Eclipse due to his conflicts of interest which allowed him to engage in a fraudulent bid while scaring off legitimate bids. Given the decline of the economy, Eclipse isn't worth what it was November 25th (when Eclipse filed for BK with the RoelJet sale filed along with it) or even January 14th (when the auction was to have closed). The stock market has gone down 7.5% since BK and 4% since the close of the auction (I know the DJIA isn't an exact match to the valuation of Eclipse, but I use it to show generally that Eclipse has lost value due to a worse market now to hold an auction than previously). Roel should be penalized - even if it isn't enforceable (as I don't think it would be given Roel's foreign residence) - so it is on his record. I don't know what the BK court can do to Roel, but it should do something to him given the harm that he's caused Eclipse's future and how he dealt in bad faith with all involved.

"Roel is not in Russia, and has not been for some time. He knows he's not getting funding (in time) from there, and is searching, hard, 'elsewhere'."

Roel is doing what any experienced, respected aviation executive/yachtsman would do to raise money. He is arranging a "Rolex toss" in some sunny clime. Thats where all the Yachtie drivers go down to the beach and see who can throw their Rolex the fartherest. The winner keeps all the watches and the losers just go out and buy some more. Since no one can throw BS any farther than Roel (except maybe the Kenster), he is a cinch, right?

Please don't make things even worse - this is the type of misconception that get people killed. Do you think you have to declare an emergency in the 1/2 second you had before taking aggressive evasive action from a hazard to your flight?

There is no such requirement to declare an emergency. Any pilot has a duty to take timely (sometimes meaning immediate) action to insure the safety of flight. If that means rolling inverted over the White House - so be it. The FARs are the last thing that should be on your mind when metal or fowl are about to get through the windshield. Saying anything, other than "WTF, or Oh S$@#" is not required.

There is no need to declare an emergency. If you need help from ATC or other sources, simply tell them the assistance you need. Other than that, once you are on the ground or things get back to normal, you can choose to explain any deviations (not violations).

Listen to the tapes from Cactus 1549. Let me know if the crew ever declared an emergency.

Mike will be amused. I know him well, and have flown in his MU2 a few times. He's a pretty smart guy, so this didn't really come across as an insult as you intended.

Maybe the Eclipse owners didn't have anywhere to go.

Ha! Ken's excuse for EA500s sitting idle is that the people that own them don't have places to go!

Well, in a larger sense, they don't have any place to go.

If you're thinking a guy with an Eclipse necessarily flies every day or even every week,

We're not talking days or weeks, we're talking *months*. As in 36% of EA500s haven't flown in 90 days or longer. What, do those folks fly 4 times a year at most?

I can tell you that some of the owners I talk to feel more comfortable not flying the plane until things settle out with the new company.

Why is that? No seriously, if you have the airplane, why would not flying it change anything about the health of the company? If the company gets liquidated, are they never going to fly it again?

This doesn't make sense, which makes me feel like this is a cover story for their airplane is out of inspection, or AOG, or they don't like it, or they've lost their medical, or any other real reason. Since no one can sell them, they don't get bought by someone who will fly them. A good percentage of owners are not making use of their airplanes and it is hard to imagine they are happy about this.

Actually Baron, the Dash 8 IS a workhorse, and the countless flight operations flown by over 900 units, over the past 25 years support that assertion. Other than yesterday's loss, nearly all other incidents have not resulted in loss of life and none have been related to icing.

The number of passenger miles safely flown by the Dash 8 series, and the massive number of flight operations given its' short haul nature, show it to be a truly reliable aircraft.

The tragedy in NY will, IMO, likely be determined to be a truly freak combination of ice accretion and aircraft configuration.

You may recall the somewhat similar ATR 72 (which has fewer than half as many examples in the air), had a much publicized accident resulting from ice (AE 4184).

Of course we are still learning alot about flying, we have only been doing it for a little over 100 years. This accident was certainly tragic, and should serve as a stark warning to anyone who would take a remotely cavalier attitude towards flight of any kind in any aircraft.

Just to add, I am not suggesting that the crew of CO 3407 were cavalier - more a pointed commentary that flight in and of itself is dangerous.

This accident actually does have several lessons for those willing to learn.

The ATR series was actually removed from service in many US markets, even after improvements in both equipment and procedures re: icing. Icing being one of the major deficiencies of the preemie jet at this time.

A trained professional crew, in a fully operational and complete aircraft, encountered a situation that exceeded their ability, and the ability of the aircraft, to protect themselves and their passengers.

Hopefully those out there who might uncollar certain ECB's in their aircraft and fly in conditions their incomplete aircraft is not legally equipped for, can recognize that icing is among the most dangerous things we can run afoul of regardless what aircraft we might be flying.

This is a reminder to all of us who are fortunate enough to slip the surly bonds at will, be careful out there, even you Ken.

Folks, like I said a few months ago, either Roel has tons of cash and you should make some noise to try to get screwed a little as possible, and he'll throw you some bones... OR he has no money and it does not matter.

The Russian money is a farce, and he has no money. Even IF he had the Russian money, the color, conditions and limitations appeared to require ROel to have a lot more money to come close to making this thing work.

I laugh at Ken's reappearance here, thumbing his nose at Shane and the blog.

I refuse to predict the "end"... this company has demonstrated a long history beyond reason, only due to the insanity of buringin cash for no apparent business case.

So, lets just remain inocent by-standers - and watch the inevitable unfold as it may.

It may take another week, or another year - no one should really care because its all academic at this point.

Ken is happy to lose his ass (he will not make a bet he cannot afford to lose, but refused to bet $10k last year, and bet a lot more on EAC...) and try to sucker folks along... into this mess. I know, I know, he got the 1 and only perfect ea50.. who can blame him.

Soon, our worst fears will come true... and we will be blogging about which repair center in Nebraska provides help to AOG Ea50's at a cost of $50k per pit stop, and a few weeks of delay... IF you are lucky that is.

Steven Chealander, the safety board member assigned to the investigation and a retired airline captain, said ...

“This Dash 8 is a workhorse airplane,”. “It’s not really susceptible to ice.”

Yep, bonehead comment for sure.

This sounds like a tail stall. Heavy ice on both wings and horizontal stab, both with higher stall speeds. Lower the flaps, airflow over the tail drops --- presto, tail stall. Pitches down, pull up, stick pusher. Stick pusher is the WRONG thing to have happen with a tail stall.

wow, now I am impressed that Ken thinks hes figured out who Flyger is...

the persnickety little man dabbles in minute details making himself think he's a smart guy, while he blows tons of cash, and bets on the riskiest bet in general aviation history - and is cavalier about the whole thing.

I guess that's what it takes. Concentrate on nit picky deatials, instead of the meaningful big picture.

Man, Ken, how do you love the upholstered seats... feels nice against your tush, don't it?

Thanks Ken, that was as spin-free an answer as I might have hoped for.

Eclipse's former VP of Training and Safety chose a MU-2 - a plane with more seats, better range and similar cruise performance to the EA-500 that can be had two or three or five to one compared to the constantly changing price of one EA-500.

The youngest of the more than 500 MU-2-s in the US BTW is 23 years old, a feat no Eclipse 500 is likely to achieve.

The cold fish opined, "[An MU2] can be had two or three or five to one compared to...price of one EA-500.

No argument from me. And little wonder they sell 'em so cheap--

Compared to the Eclipse, the MU2 is decades older, much noisier outside and in, 50-75 knots slower, burns more fuel, costs more to operate, can't top weather nearly as well, and is so unsafe that about a third of them have already crashed. It would be a surprise if they didn't sell for next to nothing.

The tragedy in NY will, IMO, likely be determined to be a truly freak combination of ice accretion and aircraft configuration.

So ICE, in your opinion, is likely to be the cause of the fatal accident on a plane that "is not susceptible to ice"?

The investigator made an idiotic affirmation, at day 1 of the investigation. He needs to be removed NOW from leading this investigation. He just demonstrated that he is in total denial of the havoc that ice can created on a high-wing turboprop, and the comment that any civil air transport, let alone a turboprop, is "not susceptible to ice" is grounds for termination of employment.

But then again, it is the government, incompetence is to be encouraged.

CW said... TBM, Dash 8 is a T-tail, no impact on the tail from configuration changes

CW, don't mean to pick on you, but Dash 8 is high wing, T-tail. Configuration changes do impact the tail. Remember that with ice on the wings airframe, the plane was already flying at a higher than usual angle of attack, and slow (to flap extension speed at least).

Throw in flaps 15 which momentarily increases the angle of attack even more, with ice on the horiz and vert stabs, there is reduced control authority to correct, speed decays further, even less control authority, stall, typical roll at the stall, deep stall, near flat spin.

Text book.

I only land at 3x runway requirements, no flaps, 1.4 Vso, on the Baron with any ice on the wings.

I know my plane was certified to known ice a long, long time ago, and it was never ever tested with supercooled droplets, ice under the wings, partial ice on the stabs, etc.

When I approach after ice encounter, I know the plane is flying as presently configured, I'm not about to "experiment" with configuration airflow disturbances at 1,500 ft AGL like this crew did. And you can bet that my hand is on the throttles ready and cocked to apply power if I get even so much as a hint of mush or buffet - NO - NOT PUSH - POWER - you can't count on your tail working correctly on buffets due to icing.

This is one of the major gaps in pilot training. On par with American Airlines training their A300 crews to stomp full deflection on rudder alone to pick up a wing that drops on turbulence.

I'll bet that the operating manual of that crew instructed them to configure the plane blindly as if ice was not there. Again idiocy. What works most of the time, may be the worst thing to do sometimes.

Movedon....interesting. Yeah Fred is a bit...no ALOT "off", but...If you know so much about why the plane is unsafe then why don't you come on not as an ex- "eclipser" but maybe use a different strategy? Ken's $ indirectly paid many EA salaries. His comment made you look like a jackass. As for management whether it's executive, upper, or middle...and I suspect your speaking of upper/middle it is what it is/was.

"And in case my disdain related to EAC wasn't clear - it's the management for whom I have no respect. Almost without exception, the rank and file were decent, hardworking and competent people.

Those who choose to attack my opinions or want details that I will not provide will not elicit another response from me on these topics."

Well said Buckaroo. You don't know the one weakest link in FIKI either do you.? This is not meant to "elicit" a response on the topics of your management disdain that you vowed not to respond to but the aircraft itself.

Reposted with a more natural interpretation of "fingers and eyes".=====================BEG: Your youtube links got me thinking...

Unbeknownst to many, in the final months before bankruptcy, EAC began to market to a younger audience. It can now be revealed that the youtube hit “David After Dentist” is, in fact an actual video of one of one of these young depositors talking with another depositor after Bankruptcy Court. This clever young man uses many code words so as to hide his identity. Thankfully, your intrepid 'EclipseCritic' JackRabbit has decoded them:

Dentist = the bankruptcy judge (because his extractions are so painful)Fingers & Eyes = Claim on company assets from Deposit and Progress Payments - David's parents apparently explained this value in terms he can understand: the value of body parts.Mouth = Shredder (David indicates what has become of the Deposit & Progress Payments)Stitches = Coupons for EclipsesMyTeeth = pet name for planned FPJ, David hoped to “cut his teeth” as a pilot on the new jet (Note how older depositor warns not to use the coupon: “don't touch it, don't!)Medicine = Judges approval of the sale of EAC

The video can be found here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txqiwrbYGrs

but "we" have to see "sure things" in this ocean of stunts , BS and P.R. !

so , even if i am 98% agreeing with you on the nature of this project ( a bit like an idea in a form of joke , hastily written down on a restaurant place-mate in a night of too-much-booze ...)

i feel that anyone can/would agree on a common basis :

the sure start of the swindling was "just" after the first flight ...at that time , they had NO WAY any more hopes , reason or ideas they could succeed ...the First-stunt was a way to get depositor's money (or to keep it) like they could fill all questions raised by a certain amount of Franklin's bills ...

a more honorable way would have be to recognize straight-away the NON-possible state of the project ( in term of price , reliability , integration , etc...) and hand-back what was left of the money , leaving a big hole in their wallet ....

some do the right choice , some prefer to see things only on the shiny surface ...

"at that time , they had NO WAY any more hopes , reason or ideas they could succeed ..."

why not?- take deposits from escrow, live a few more months- switch engines, enlarge the plane, and sell as many as planned before

What's so difficult to understand? Same plan as before, just a schedule delay and redesign for a new engine.

PROBLEM IS: they knew all this would be required BEFORE first flight, and claimed "first flight" of a conforming jet and took deposits, when in fact, a few weeks later, they blamed Williams and threw the engine in the garbage.

step-1 (after years of development with the engine that couldn't) fly a non-conforming plane, call it conformingstep-2 take depositsstep-3 claim this engine issue is new to you at this point, and disgard engine, blame WI, and tell the position holders you just discovered the engine won't work, and there's a redesign and schedule delay.

- how many folks would have asked for refunds, if EAC was honest, and stated the engine was not good, and they would need to find a new engine and redesign the plane?

I think the law is there to protect from exactly this kind of situation.

BTW, the next refund event comes only after all the money is spent, making it nearly impossible for anyone to get their money back, in reality.

It was a nasty thing to do to everyone... blatently dishonest, tricky and simply behaviour unbecomming an aircraft OEM. IMO.

The Q200, which is the smallest development of the Dash 8 in production, has an 85 foot wing span, 585 square feet of wing area, and a max gross weight of 36,300 pounds for a wing loading of 62 pounds/square foot of wing area.

The Q400 has a 93 foot wing span, 679 square feet of wing, and a max gross weight of 64,500 pounds for a wing loading of 95 pounds/square foot of wing area.

There is apparently no point trying to explain any of this to you, in addition to your command of high-finance you are apparently also an experienced engineer, aerodynamicist, technical writer and pilot trainer.

It really is no fun to have to explain these things in boring detail, but here we go.

The horizontal tail feathers on a Q-400 are nearly 14 feet above the wing for those actually interested.

Yes, 14 feet.

Chealander's statement is not being appreciated or understood.

He did not say the Dash 8 is not sussceptible to ice, he said it is not really susceptible ice - there is a big difference.

It was not an assertion that the plane is impervious to ice, none are.

Chealander is an experienced airline pilot and accident investigator. His point was that this will likely be more than a simple icing encounter. Dash 8's fly through ice every day.

There are about 900 Dash 8's in service, flying mostly short haul - in other words, they fly a lot. The exposure to icing is tremendous, and yet this is the first accident for the type under these conditions in the 25 years since the plane was introduced.

I have been in an out of SAE-TAC on more Dash 8's than I can count - in all weather conditions.

I do believe that icing is the culprit in this accident, and I suspect Chealander does as well, but his job as lead of the investigation is to rule nothing out, that means NOTHING. It also means he can not presuppose the outcome either.

My opinion, as I stated before, is that if the cause can be accurately determined, that it will likely be a freak combination of icing build-up and then either an asymmetric shedding of that ice, or possibly a combination of bridging and the configuration change (flaps and gear).

I believe that Chealander's comment was made in the context of the American Eagle ATR accident - which was known to have icing issues.

Airline crews do not 'blindly' follow procedures Baron, that suggests they are mindless automotons and that the Dash 8 procedures and Colgan training are somehow deficient - both are tremendously shortsighted and mistaken.

Everyone learned from the American Eagle accident Baron, OEM's and operators. Everyone changed procedures and training - but only so many things can be accurately foreseen and built into procedures and training.

The reg's were updated based on NEW understandings of ice build-up and the effect on equipment. In the case of the ATR it was removed from service in areas of the US with regular icing. Not becuase after the fix the ATR was not better, but because the PR damage to the ATR had been done.

The PR damage was done by uneducated hyperventilating overstatements, similar to the ones you just made.

The fires are barely out, and the remains have yet to be recovered, let's save the hyperbolic recriminations for after the professionals complete their investigation.

I'm not sure how you and Ken came to the conclusion that EAC screwed me. They did not. Unlike Ken, I never lost a dime or a minute of sleep to them.

As for Ken paying my salary: It has been thoroughly discussed here that Eclipse lost money on every sale so his money didn't even pay for the plane he's flying. Besides, his screwing occurred long before I got there. No, a great many others had to be fleeced to pay my salary and unlike Ken, they are still victims and deserving of sympathy. Victims of EAC - not me.

I realize it's a slow news week for you, but can't you find something more worthwhile than my opinions about which to get your panties in a bunch?

I'm sure you'll try to bait me in to a response but unless the caliber of your attempt rises above the juvenile level you have already exhibited, there will be no response. Basshole, it's time to "move on"...

I'm no expert on American Bankruptcy law, but I'm pretty sure there is at least some measure of protection offered by Chapter 11.

Remember, until the situation with Roel is crystal clear to the Board of Directors at EAC, the company is operating under 'Debtor In Possession' (DIP) rules.

I expect that the BoD will petition the Court in Delaware to either a) extend the DIP based on expectation of fresh funds early next week or b) if they are positive that Roel is 'out' then move to Chapter 7.

Option b) is the more difficult decision. I understand that Roel has been 'uncooperative' over the past few days, but has not said he is finished. I imagine that the BoD would need him to declare ETIRC were gone, before actually hitting the Chapter 7 button.

They could achieve this by issuing an ultimatum to ETIRC, giving them until 'x' time on 'y' day to pay 'z' amount.

Or Roel could simply write to the BoD, withdrawing from the process. He would of course still be liable for expenses under the DIP. However, since ETIRC is a shell, who's only asset (that 'we' can find) is the shareholding in EAC, that point may become academic.

On balance, I think the BoD will act responsibly and move before they run out of cash to pay the staff. It's possible they will do this in the form of 'temporary layoffs' in the hope of getting funding from elsewhere, but I feel this will only drag out the pain.

As I said yesterday, I think a 'clean' Chapter 7 is the best way forward now. Others have mentioned the decline in value since the Chapter 11 started. The way I hear it, more and more of the 'good' staff are taking job offers elsewhere as the uncertainty continues.

Pretty soon we will be dealing with an 'empty shell' in ABQ, where nobody gets anything. Owners will face a longer than necessary period before service options become clear. Staff are holding on in (unrealistic) expectation of a rescue. Depositors are denied closure and the option of finding another aircraft for their needs and finally suppliers are paying to hold onto resources which (in my opinion) are unlikely to be required in the short term.

No, this scam needs a proper housecleaning at this stage. Shut it down, clear out the dodgy management and historical debt, make a proper plan to revive the FPJ as a $2.5 million small business jet/owner flown plaything and move on from there.

Sadly that analysis sees many of the 'troops' in ABQ and the services centers out of work.

Compared to the Eclipse, the MU2 is decades older, much noisier outside and in, 50-75 knots slower, burns more fuel, costs more to operate,

The MU-2 costs more to operate than the Partial Eclipse? Maybe for your first year compared to a 25 year old MU-2 that is true. Looking forward to the next year, I think most of us here strongly doubt your coming maintenance bill will be less than an equivalent MU-2 operation.

Shane, I accept the notion that blocking can have unintended consequences, but I don't think that damning the FPJ is one of them. True, it dilutes activity statistics ( for those who are so inclined ), but it dilutes across all fleets. For that matter, I'd guess that as you move up in price range, the percentage of aircraft blocked increases ( more G-Vs blocked than FPJs, for instance ). At my home field, there are 6 Gulfstreams - 5 are blocked. One FPJ ( not positive it's based here, but it frequents the place ), and it's not blocked.

There are many legitimate business intelligence, security, and privacy related reasons for blocking activity from Flight Aware. Just 'cuz it's inconvenient for us sometimes, doesn't make it *bad*.

Baron 95 wrote:I only land at 3x runway requirements, no flaps, 1.4 Vso, on the Baron with any ice on the wings.

I know my plane was certified to known ice a long, long time ago, and it was never ever tested with supercooled droplets, ice under the wings, partial ice on the stabs, etc.

When I approach after ice encounter, I know the plane is flying as presently configured, I'm not about to "experiment" with configuration airflow disturbances at 1,500 ft AGL like this crew did. And you can bet that my hand is on the throttles ready and cocked to apply power if I get even so much as a hint of mush or buffet - NO - NOT PUSH - POWER - you can't count on your tail working correctly on buffets due to icing.

Remember, until the situation with Roel is crystal clear to the Board of Directors at EAC, the company is operating under 'Debtor In Possession' (DIP) rules.

I guess that is one penalty for Roel right there seeing how that his $30M to buy Eclipse was going to be used to pay off the DIP that he owes himself. I guess since Roel delt in bad faith, someone could move to make Roel's DIP financing no longer be super-priority and instead stick him with all the other creditors so that he can end up with pennies on the dollar and not be the first pig at the trough when legit bids are done by those who practice good faith.

Just a commment about planes not being flown. Some of us choose to block our tail numbers from flight tracking. We fly it about once a week but you'll never see evidence of this online.

Understood. Blocked aircraft (15) were removed from the data set. Also, aircraft that have never appeared on FA were also removed (9).

I don't know that one can make an argument that the blocked aircraft are more likely to be flying the the rest. I think removing both blocked and absent aircraft is about as fair as you can get.

There are definitely those who fly the plane very regularly. 61 airplanes had been flown in the past week. Then there are those airplanes that tend to sit a lot. So it does seem bimodal to some extent.

There are a number of airplanes that were being flown regularly, then just stopped cold. So airplanes tend to change categories rather suddenly:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N800EJ/history

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N762DL/history

There's quite a number in the 90-150 days range where the planes were being flown multiple times per week and then stopped.

Now, forgive me if I've got this wrong, but I'm pretty sure people would regard me as pretty high up the list when it come to being critical of Eclipse. From where I'm at, anything that's damming for Eclipse is a GOOD THING.

So, let them 'block away', for all I care!

I just find it amusing that the FPJ fraternity seem to think it's ok for this newbie jet to wear an invisibility cloak. You'd imagine they were embarrassed at owning one.

I've finally gotten back to reading Eclipse BK documents. Though I don't agree with all that the Bradley Group says, it looks pretty clear that Roel was going to purchase Eclipse with money that was meant for Eclipse. It seems crazy that Roel was going to pay Eclipse $175K+ in royalties for each unit he bought from Eclipse, but that's what he said he'd do and that. It seems like there is pretty good reason to stop the sale as the CEO of Eclipse would be using Eclipse's source of salvation for his own benefit when if it was delivered, there would be no need to. I question whether the Russians would pay out, but if they do, Eclipse should benefit per the agreed upon existing contract rather than have Roel personally benefit based on cancelling those contracts.

Also it is interesting to learn that Mann would get 20% of EclipseJet and how Mann as a board member basically said he had no responsibilities whatsoever.

I'm also not surprised by all the discovery tricks played by Roel and his gang. The two holiday vacation on not being able to provide discovery to the Bradley group is classic.

First, I'm guessing you meant DAMNING, not DAMMING. DAMMING means to create a barrier to the flow of water (maybe that's your problem--your water doesn't flow?).

Second, if you think it is DAMNING, you think it is "BAD:"

DAMNING: proving guilty, wrong, or bad (courtesy Encarta dictionary)

See the thing is, if you can't get simple facts right--like the spelling of the words you're using or what they mean, how can anyone believe you're able to get big facts right like whether Medvedev has anything to do with funding for Putin's pet projects? :)

I'm thinking you're going to have a lot of egg on your face very soon.